2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On March 5, 2016, the Defendant asserted that he/she was employed as an employee of the Plaintiff and served until November 2018.

The Plaintiff first paid 1.3 million won per month to the Defendant as wages, and paid 1.57 million won from January 2018.

The Plaintiff paid 4,282,00 won (=28,00 won + 1,422,000 won + 158,000 won x 9 months) in total by remitting the amount equivalent to 10% of the monthly wage to the Defendant’s Nonghyup Bank or Kakao Bank account as a retirement allowance. Nevertheless, the Defendant alleged that he did not receive a retirement allowance, and received 7,020,561 won as a retirement allowance by filing a complaint with the Labour Office. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to return the Plaintiff’s 4,282,00 won and delay damages therefor, which the Defendant received from the Plaintiff as a retirement allowance, to the employer as unjust enrichment even though the employer actually paid the monthly wage to the Defendant. If the validity of payment is not recognized despite the fact of the nominal payment of the retirement allowance, it is assumed that the payment of the paid amount should be fairly returned to the employer as unjust enrichment (see the aforementioned legal principle in the en banc Decision 2007Da207979, supra.).

Therefore, even though the pertinent agreement entered into between an employer and an employee is merely a determination of the wage, if the employer only takes the form of a retirement allowance installment agreement to evade the payment of retirement allowances, such legal doctrine cannot be applied.

In other words, the retirement allowance shall be included in the monthly pay or daily pay between the employer and the employee, and a separate retirement allowance shall be paid at the time of retirement.